Regular bail granted on grounds of parity where co-accused were previously enlarged in a land fraud case.

The applicant filed her first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following her arrest on February 18, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant’s mother’s land was sold to co-accused Pratap Majumdar using a forged Power of Attorney.

The applicant was accused of impersonating the landowner and executing documents using a forged Aadhaar card, with her photograph appearing on the fraudulent Power of Attorney.

The applicant contended she was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and sought parity with three co-accused persons who were previously granted bail by the High Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS on the grounds of parity and the status of the investigation.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The substantive offences charged were under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 419 (impersonation), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine), and 34 (common intention).

The court also relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence and the procedural requirements of Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS to ensure the applicant's future appearance at trial.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations of forgery and impersonation against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was nearing completion as the charge-sheet had already been submitted before the competent court.

A primary factor in the court's reasoning was the principle of parity; three other co-accused—Keshav Ram Devangan, Hemant Sen, and Pratap Majumdar—had already been granted regular bail in late 2024 and early 2025.

The court further observed that the applicant had been in custody since February 18, 2026, and that the trial's conclusion would likely take significant time.

Finding no reason to treat the applicant differently from the released co-accused and considering the finished investigation, the court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The holding was based on the grounds of parity and the submission of the charge-sheet.

The release was made subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear on all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording statements), and must comply with BNS/BNSS provisions regarding presence, under penalty of bail cancellation.